User:RandelitoRand/Mole sauce/Savetheocean2 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)  Randelitorand
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mole sauce

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes the Lead has been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes there is an introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content that is added is relevant to the topic. It has lots of details.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the content that is included is all important and valid to the topic of the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does in a way because the article is about Mole which is a popular food among hispanics which don't get much recognition and articles on Wikipedia along with People of Color.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is not. Everything seems neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't think so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not, the content is very informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Somewhat.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it was very easy to read and understand. I enjoyed the article, it was very interesting.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not really.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the organization was well throughout the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes definitely.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the content did improve the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added enhanced the information that was already there.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content could be a bit more concise.